Requesting help understanding (lack of) entrenchment

[BlueAndGray]

I'm playing the German side in the 1941 campaign and I'm setting up for the incoming winter. The weather has been raining and I understand that heavy rain/heavy mud drastically slows down entrenchment, but I have units that have not improved over entrenchment level 1 +10% for up to 5 turns/weeks now. Here's my checklist of things I could think of:
- the units in question are NOT in assault mode
- the units in question are NOT in contact with the enemy - enemy is gapped with at least 1 clear hex between hostile forces and my forces
- the units are infantry divisions
- units are at 85%+ TOE level
- most of them are at prep 100
- supply levels aren't great, but generally above 75%
- the first 5 units have been in their positions and haven't moved since Turn 17 - it is now Turn 24
- units are all within 5 hexes of their corps HQ
- terrain is mixed - clear, heavy woods, swamp
- let me know if I need to provide more information

I'm focusing on 5 infantry divisions that have been parked near Leningrad since the end of Turn 17 and haven't moved since. By turn 19 they all had entrenchment level 1. It is now Turn 24 and they have not improved their positions even incrementally in 5 turns. I have a few units that seem to have no problem gaining entrenchment level 2 (about 12 made it so far), but other units are stuck at 1+10% turn after turn after turn. Even in bad weather I would expect the tool tip to show my entrenchment improving - even if only slowly. The zero progress is really driving me bonkers though.

A little help to understand what I'm missing would be much appreciated!

TIA

[K62_]

They won't dig in past level 1 away from the enemy. Either move them next to enemy hexes or build fortified zones to get them to dig further.

[BlueAndGray]

Thank you for your response.

I take it that this is the relevant section from the manual I missed:
Fortification Levels 2 or 3: Must either be 1) adjacent to an enemy hex, or 2) a City/Urban/Heavy Urban terrain
hex, or 3) contain a port (of any size), or 4) contain a fortified zone unit in the hex. Once the level 3 is reached,
the condition does not have to continue to be met to keep the level 3 fortification.

Is there any chance someone could provide some background as to why the rule is written the way it is? Is this rule specifically designed to force the Axis forces to be not fully capable of digging in before the winter of '41 as a game balancing mechanic? It feels counterintuitive to say that I can't force back any enemy troops from my lines because that will make my troops stop digging in. If anything, I would think you could dig in much more effectively if you were not being actively shot at. (modeled by higher CPP allowing you to dig faster)

The way this is working out in practice is that the better you did in the summer and fall, the worse off you will be in the winter since your troops will freeze to death (or at least thrown into the disabled pool in large numbers) all because there weren't enough live enemy troops to force your troops to dig in? Both sides certainly made enormous numbers of mistakes, especially in the first year of the war, but this just smacks of utter unprofessionalism to not dig in because the enemy is 10 miles away instead of 0 miles away. The current rule seems to say that the enemy forces dictate where you are allowed to put your main defensive line more than you can decide for yourself. Please help me make this make sense. Please.

[K62_]

The rule affects both sides more or less equally. The Axis would not do very well during Barbarossa and Fall Blau if the Soviets could build multiple lines with level 3 fortifications everywhere on the map.

As for motivation, I can't speak for the designers but the overall effect seems to be realistic. Historically neither side succeeded in constructing extensive, well-entrenched backup lines across the entire front. Wherever they existed they were local features such as the Mozhaisk Line in '41 and the Panther Line in '44.

The game simulates this through the "fortified zone" feature. It allows you to build defensive lines away from the front, but at a cost in APs and you can only build a limited number of them. This opens up some interesting strategic choices such as: do you fortify a small, continuous section of the front (and where?), or a longer line of isolated strongholds? How many APs do you spend on this, as opposed to other winter preparations, such as building more depots or assigning better leaders to your infantry HQs?

[BlueAndGray]

My point was less about the fortified zones and more about the fact that troops only dig in above a superficial level when in contact? Enemy contact should not be something that increases the ability to construct basic trench fortifications.

I'm not trying to rebuild the Panther line here (manual describes these as level 4) - I'm trying to get level 2 which is still below the level of WWI trench lines (level 3 is labeled as "Typical WW1 or static eastern front positions" in the manual). The Germans were notorious for building competent fortifications during on the Western Front during WWI, in part due to the fact that they were trying to go defensive in the West and offensive in the East - the point being that the German army historically built well engineered fortifications everywhere when given the opportunity. The British forces were also notorious for NOT digging in effectively on the Western Front (still talking WWI) because they wanted to be offensive minded. One of the most noticeable effects was that British troops lived in relative squalor because they deliberately did not build as many dugouts and similar fortification to keep their troops out of the mud 24/7. This was a stated policy by British high command in WWI. Hitler's quote in late '41 was “The will to hold out must be brought home to every unit!”, but I'm not aware of any German policy to NOT dig in during WWII.

I am not trying to build multiple lines of defense - just the single line. I'm just dumbfounded that Axis troops would sit still for up to 2 months and do nothing because the enemy is 10 miles away instead of zero. That's the part that doesn't make sense.

Here's another example from the rules that I think showcases what I'm talking about here:
20.2.1 Proximity to the enemy: Any ground elements in the unit that are not engineer or construction types have their
construction value divided by five when adjacent to an enemy unit.

So they acknowledge it is MUCH harder (5 times harder specifically) to dig in while adjacent to enemy forces. However, if the enemy unit is 10 miles away they just flat out stop digging. Am I wrong to feel that these are fundamentally contradictory stances? It seems to be much more reality based that troops that are screened from direct contact would dig in faster than troops that are being shelled daily. To have the troops refuse to dig in because they are screened feels punitive? As it is, I'm trying to sort out how many weeks I'm willing to go back and redo my lines due to these game constraints...

[Joel Billings]

One thing to keep in mind is that the entire question of digging fortifications was often a political question, for both sides. We decided against stand fast rules, but we wanted to put some limits on what you can do re digging in when you are not actually on the front (which is considered next to an enemy hex). Digging away from the enemy is easier to do, but it usually requires pre-planning and a withdrawal, and pre-planning and withdrawals bring up the political aspects. You can pay your admin points (which are at some level political points) to create fort units, and these fort units will let you dig anywhere in the rear (otherwise you only dig deep in major cities and ports without fort units). If you have units to man the fortifications once built, it won't degrade and you can disband the fort (in case you run out of fort units and want to build even more fortifications). That was our design thinking.

[BlueAndGray]

Political decisions (meddling) were certainly Hitler's forte to a major extent and to a lesser extent for Stalin as well. I agree with that. If we're sticking to historical precedent, there was a political decision to divert 4th Panzer Army from Army Group North (AGN) since armor was needed for the push on Moscow (and armor was far from ideal in the northern terrain/urban combat). There was a halt called for AGN and those forces dug in and didn't move for most part during the approximately 2-3 years during the siege of Leningrad. This political decision was made in 1941 (hopefully preaching to the choir here since I know you know your history - just trying to get a read on where I'm missing something). Are we seeing the same thing or no?

I guess part of the kicker here is just how binary the difference are for units with extremely similar circumstances. In my case I have one corps (42 Corps/16th Army) with 4 divisions on a line facing Leningrad (hexes 189, 105 - 192,105). In their case the opposing hex is enemy controlled (ZOC only - no enemy units) which allows them to dig in fully - or at least they've made it to level 2. Next Corps in the line (38 Corps/16th Army) has a diagonal line from hex 193, 105 - 195, 108 running SE towards Lake Ilmen - also with 4 divisions on a (diagonal) line. This corps had pushed back any enemy units directly threatening it. There was no withdrawal, but I agree this was a pre-planned halt. The only difference is that the single hex between the opposing forces is friendly owned in this case. 38 Corps will not dig in past level 1 and is going to have a drastically different outcome compared to 42 Corps in the coming winter and the only difference between them is who owned the 10 mile strip of land between them. The corps that was in a mildly safer position is the one that will have the significantly worse outcome even though they both part of 16th Army, and in the same sector, both corps have enemy formations 10 miles away, they are taking completely different defensive postures. Can you at least see my viewpoint when I say that this feels arbitrary?

The solution offered (outside of the forts which I believe is kind of a separate issue - see below) is that I have to rearrange the defensive lines and in effect accept the fact that the location of enemy forces is what dictates where my lines must be if I want to dig in (to level 2 at least) for the winter of '41. I feel this is just going too far. Especially since at 10 miles apart, they are close enough that they are interfering with each other's Zone of Control - not close enough for attritional combat, but close enough that both sides know their enemy is nearby and commanders who generally would not allow their troops to idle.

I'm not disagreeing that this was (an attempt) a planned halt with the intent to dig in with favorable rail lines and depots at my back. But isn't that kind of the point of this game? You get to do things a bit differently and see what happens. Axis units should have some serious difficulties in the winter of '41 and in my game they will - I certainly won't have cleaned up all of my lines before the blizzard arrives, supplies will become very scarce, and Soviet reinforcements are immense. I just feel like there should be some agency available to the Axis player where it makes sense based on the actual situation on the ground.


PS - the reason why I feel the forts are a separate issue is that my understanding of forts is that they are exceptional strongpoints with dedicated combat and labor(construction) elements. Field fortifications up to level 3 are listed in the manual as "Typical WW1 or static eastern front positions" - they aren't special. They just took time to build up. I'm not trying to build strongpoints - I'm trying to build a WW1 style static trench line. Obviously I'm doing this to ameliorate the effects of the winter of '41, but parts of this do mirror historical precedent (at least for the Northern front - much less so elsewhere). Based on how digging in works I'm thinking Forts are most useful as protected positions to place reserves more than for front line troops, but that's just my own opinion.